Articles negative or critical of the R3 Blockchain Consortium have disappeared from a number of web sites. What could be behind their removal?

306Total views

100Total shares

Articles negative or critical of the R3 Blockchain Consortium have disappeared from a number of web sites. What could be behind their removal?

There have been suggestions that the bank-backed blockchain consortium R3CEV could be in turmoil as members take issue with with the request for $200 million in funding to develop their own private blockchain.

Big banks considering their options?

An article critical of R3 was removed from the IBSIntelligence.com website. The suggested purportedly offending text said:

“The request for funding has reportedly not gone down well with the core members of the R3 consortium, who want a bigger return on their investment and for their support of the overall project.

An insider has described the situation as an “implosion”, adding that “the big banks are apoplectic with the high-handed approach and are busy considering their options.”

Another article on Finextra.com which released much of the same information was also removed. However, articles such as this on The Merkle which don’t mention the unrest have stayed up, hence the suggestion that R3 could be behind the articles’ removal.

Satoshi endorsement

Reddit user, /u/TaleRecursion suggested on the /r/bitcoin topic discussing the stories’ removal that the Craig Wright-Satoshi Nakamoto fiasco could be behind their sudden disappearance:

“There is a strong connection between R3 and Craig Wright, both directly through Ian Grigg who is a close friend of Wright and architect at R3 and was actively involved in the hoax, and indirectly through Mike Hearn, a core developer at R3 and a crony of Gavin Andresen.

The timing of R3's fundraiser just after what was supposed to be a glorious return of the master is also uncanny.

Sounds like a very weird coincidence. I wonder if R3 had bragged to banks that they had the support of Satoshi himself. That would explain why banks would suddenly backpedal over a measly 200M funding request when they found out that they had been taken for a ride.”